KARTAR SINGH Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The demised premises are a shop situate in Ludhiana town. It was let by Kartar Singh applicant sometime in 1953. According to Kartar Singh, applicant he let the same to Ram Lal, respondent 1, who first introduced a sub-tenant Jai Dial, respondent 2, and subsequently introduced another sub-tenant Devki Nandan, respondent 3. He sought eviction of the respondents from the shop on the ground of subletting as under section 13(2) (ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act, 3, of 1949).

(2.) Of the respondents, Jai Dial, respondent 2; has taken no interest in the matter. Devki Nandan, respondent 3; is in possession of the shop and he has been supported by Ram Lal, respondent 1. Those two respondents have taken the defence that the original tenancy of the shop by Kartar Singh, applicant was in favour of a firm with the name and style of Grand Cycle Centre of which the partners were respondent 1, and 2. Probably what they mean is that this was the position when the original tenancy came into existence in 1953. Jai Dial, respondent 2, is said to have retired from partnership a couple of years after, which would come to 1955. Thereafter Devki Nandan, respondent 3, was taken as a partner with himself by Ram Lal, respondent 1. On the facts so far stated this should be sometime in 1955. However, the dissolution deed, Exhibit R. 16, of November 23, 1964, shows that the partnership between respondents 1, and 3, started on April 3, 1961. It is obvious that there is no explanation whether between 1955, and 1961, respondent, 3, was or was not a partner with respondent 1, in the firm Grand Cycle Centre. In any event, the defence of respondent 1, and 3, has been that after the retirement of respondent 2, from partnership with respondent 1, in the firm Grand Cycle Centre, respondent 3, became partner with respondent 1. Subsequently, the dissolution deed, Exhibit R. 16, shows that on November 23, 1964, there was dissolution of partnership between respondents 1 and 3, Respondent 1, took an amount of Rs. 8,000/- and left the shop and the business in the shop totally to respondent No. 3. Respondents 1, and 3, denied that the shop was let to respondent 1, and they averred that it was let to the firm Grand Cycle Centre. Between 1953, and 1961, there is no evidence as to who paid the rent for the shop. In any case, there is no evidence whether it was Ram Lal, respondent 1, who paid the rent on his own account or it was the firm Grand Cycle Centre, which paid the rent. The application produced four witnesses, namely, Kartar Singh, P.W.4; Ishar Singh; P.W.5; Sohan Lal, P.W.6, and Ram Nath P.W.7, the neighbouring shopkeepers, who deposed that the shop had been let by the applicant to respondent 1, but the authorities below have not accepted the evidence of those witnesses. There are receipts of payment of rent between 1961, and 1964, Exhibits R. 1, to 15, which show that rent was paid to the applicant for and on behalf of the firm Grand Cycle Centre, some of the receipts having been signed by respondent 3, as well. On this evidence the authorities below have come to the conclusion that the original tenancy of the shop by the applicant was not in favour of respondent 1, as an individual, but in favour of the firm Grand Cycle Centre.

(3.) The authorities below have come to a concurrent finding that the tenancy has been with the firm Grand Cycle Centre, of which initially the partners were respondents 1, and 2, and, on the retirement of respondent 2, as partner, respondent 3, was taken as a partner along with himself by respondent 1. Respondent 1, dropped out on account of the dissolution of the partnership between respondents 1, and 3, by the dissolution deed, Exhibit R. 16, of November 23, 1964. So, since that date it is respondent 3, alone who has been in occupation of the shop. In these circumstances, the authorities below were of the opinion that there is no case of sub-letting, the tenancy having been given to the firm Grand Cycle Centre, it continues to be with that firm. So the eviction application by the applicant against the respondents was dismissed. This is a revision application by the applicant, the landlord, from the order of the Appellate Authority, affirming the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his eviction application against the respondents.